CA Department of Justice sends Vanguard second delinquency notice as of Aug 25, 2023

[IllianaLancerContra]

9 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

 

Don't know why Vanguard postponed their Board meeting (something about DCI rules and staff announcements), but their Board Treasurer has appears to have resigned as well, and this notice is only 3 days old.   

 

https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y

 

Well that’s not good.  

[IllianaLancerContra]

8 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

neither did I, I fixed the link to get to you the search page, but you have to dig them up yourself, newest documents are at the the bottom of the search query (it's a cappy webpage). 

(Marginally OT) - It was same when searching Pennsylvania court websites for updates to the GH criminal case.  Almost looks like CA used the same software to build the site.  

[Mr_Moto]

9 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

 

Don't know why Vanguard postponed their Board meeting (something about DCI rules and staff announcements), but their Board Treasurer has appears to have resigned as well, and this notice is only 3 days old.   

 

https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y

 

Where did you see the Treasurer resigned? I haven’t seen that. 

[Richard Lesher]

This is what scheherazadesghost means about SCV censorship and the direction DSpruce comes at her (and I to a lesser degree) about.

 

The ONLY place this document is not allowed for viewing is the SCV controlled Facebook Forum. You can find it here, you can find it at the CA DOJ link, I gave it to the DCI ethics channel, I'll post it on VMAPA.org later today, and I suspect someone is going to post it on Reddit. 

 

But you cannot post it on the SCV Alumni Association FB Forum. 

 

 

 

Things have been weighing very heavily on me, and the stress was really starting to show itself outwardly. My 4 year old even said to me "Daddy, don't be angry..................be happy". 

 

The timing of this DOJ letter couldn't be better for my health. The rapid flow of blood in my veins has instantaneously changed from anger and stress to excitement and joy. 

 

I don't need to point anything out anymore. I don't need to hold everyone's hands to the logic flow of the consequences these red flags are indicating. 

 

The only reason to have pulled that notice from the SCV Alumni Association is to prevent those remaining alumni that only get SCV updates through that venue.

 

This is public record with the State of California Department of Justice and SCV management isn't OK with its disclosure. 

 

I'm not even mad. I understand there are those that will simply not come to reason. With the resignation of the SCV Board Treasurer in the last few days, it appears the only hold outs now are the entirety of the SCV Leadership. 

[scheherazadesghost]

1 hour ago, Orwellian Wiress said:

What does this mean?

I'll take a stab at this but it's all experienced/educated guess work. Incoming wall of text and accusations of dominating the topic despite no one else answering these questions.

The letter means that the delinquencies have not been adequately addressed by VMAPA up until the release of the letter, dated a few days ago. If they have been addressed by VMAPA, then the DOJ still followed some kind of protocol and sent the letter anyway. Minimally this action broadcasts to citizens of the state of California that they are still in delinquency of requirements to operate as a charity. Once they clear the delinquency, they will own fines. If I'm being generous, this is a formality at best and situation is being handled, as indicated by 2nd hand communications via the alumni association, not made formally public at this time. If I'm not being generous, then VMAPA has not addressed the delinquencies since the first letter was sent to them in 2021.

Again, contents in the letter indicate continued delinquency status, meaning they cannot solicit or disburse donations. Fortunately, it does clarify that they don't need to cease operations, which I find a relief, as previous communications indicated to me that this was a possibility. Alas, though, a nonprofit not serving its mission (ie not field a corps) nor soliciting donations is barely a nonprofit anymore. My concern is that they're just what the former CEO indicated they were: a bingo business with a drum corps side hustle. 😔

The resignation of the board treasurer is very concerning to me. This means there is no financial officer-voting member/volunteer anymore working to keep the finances in check. The CFO/former board president/former board treasurer is still there, but just to be clear: best practices indicate that paid executives in nonprofits should be nonvoting members of the board because they draw salaries. To be a voting member would be a conflict of interest, and merely sitting on the board can been as one too. I don't know if this officer is voting, but with dwindling board numbers, I just wanted to be clear.

See here: https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/board-roles-and-responsibilities

and here: https://form1023.org/nonprofit-board-of-directors-officers-members-explained

Specifically: "Non-voting Officers of a Nonprofit Corporation

Nonvoting officers positions are generally paid positions, meaning that non-voting officers of a nonprofit are employees of the organization, not policy makers. Because they get compensated by the board, they have a conflict of interest to sit on the nonprofit board of directors." CFO is listed on the BOD page of the website.

and, alternatively:

"Nonprofit board members which are the leadership class cannot be compensated and be paid salary for their board duties, not a single black penny. ... You cannot in any shape or form compensate these voting class as you will lose your tax exemption, period."

This is all made worse by few alumni monitoring the situation who are well-versed in nonprofit governance, so someone like me is kept at far away. Easy to agree that the board is handling it when you don't know what a board is supposed to look like from top to bottom.

TLDR: Nobody knows what it means except the current board because next steps aren't being communicated out yet. Simplistically put, they still can't solicit or disburse donations. It is additionally concerning that the board treasurer has resigned during this difficult time. The BOD is already so small and has been bleeding members in the last five years. Lots of rotation of leadership roles within the BOD and consistent rotation of some of them into what should be nonvoting officer positions.

Edited August 29, 2023 by scheherazadesghost
typo

[DSpruce]

Re the fb page I am aware that the only thing preventing it from being posted was a snarky comment at the top “Welp time to post to DCP” and that Richard has been informed that it will be reposted if the comment at the top aligns with the community rules.

Edited August 29, 2023 by DSpruce

[DSpruce]

The reason I am aware of that is there was a bit of a discussion in slack that that was in violation of rule 2 of the community guidelines but otherwise no issue.

[IllianaLancerContra]

37 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I'll take a stab at this but it's all experienced/educated guess work. Incoming wall of text and accusations of dominating the topic despite no one else answering these questions.

The letter means that the delinquencies have not been adequately addressed by VMAPA up until the release of the letter, dated a few days ago. If they have been addressed by VMAPA, then the DOJ still followed some kind of protocol and sent the letter anyway. Minimally this action broadcasts to citizens of the state of California that they are still in delinquency of requirements to operate as a charity. Once they clear the delinquency, they will own fines. If I'm being generous, this is a formality at best and situation is being handled, as indicated by 2nd hand communications via the alumni association, not made formally public at this time. If I'm not being generous, then VMAPA has not addressed the delinquencies since the first letter was sent to them in 2021.

Again, contents in the letter indicate continued delinquency status, meaning they cannot solicit or disburse donations. Fortunately, it does clarify that they don't need to cease operations, which I find a relief, as previous communications indicated to me that this was a possibility. Alas, though, a nonprofit not serving its mission (ie not field a corps) nor soliciting donations is barely a nonprofit anymore. My concern is that they're just what the former CEO indicated they were: a bingo business with a drum corps side hustle. 😔

The resignation of the board treasurer is very concerning to me. This means there is no financial officer-voting member/volunteer anymore working to keep the finances in check. The CFO/former board president/former board treasurer is still there, but just to be clear: best practices indicate that paid executives in nonprofits should be nonvoting members of the board because they draw salaries. To be a voting member would be a conflict of interest, and merely sitting on the board can been as one too. I don't know if this officer is voting, but with dwindling board numbers, I just wanted to be clear.

See here: https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/governance-leadership/board-roles-and-responsibilities

and here: https://form1023.org/nonprofit-board-of-directors-officers-members-explained

Specifically: "Non-voting Officers of a Nonprofit Corporation

Nonvoting officers positions are generally paid positions, meaning that non-voting officers of a nonprofit are employees of the organization, not policy makers. Because they get compensated by the board, they have a conflict of interest to sit on the nonprofit board of directors." CFO is listed on the BOD page of the website.

and, alternatively:

"Nonprofit board members which are the leadership class cannot be compensated and be paid salary for their board duties, not a single black penny. ... You cannot in any shape or form compensate these voting class as you will lose your tax exemption, period."

This is all made worse by few alumni monitoring the situation who are well-versed in nonprofit governance, so someone like me is kept at far away. Easy to agree that the board is handling it when you don't know what a board is supposed to look like from top to bottom.

TLDR: Nobody knows what it means except the current board because next steps aren't being communicated out yet. Simplistically put, they still can't solicit or disburse donations. It is additionally concerning that the board treasurer has resigned during this difficult time. The BOD is already so small and has been bleeding members in the last five years. Lots of rotation of leadership roles within the BOD and consistent rotation of some of them into what should be nonvoting officer positions.

To expand a bit - one thing that OP pointed out in previous discussions and is alluded to in the letter is that under CA non-profit rules some monies from one source can’t be mixed with monies from other sources (I remember dealing with this all the time when I was in Pentagon; we referred to it as colors of money (there were 18), some colors you could mix, some not). 
 

To the present discussion- There is concern that bingo $, the primary revenue source, is being fed back into the bingo operation to pay the bingo employees as there are few other revenue sources with which to pay them.  And apparently this is against the CA bingo rules for non-profits.  
 

OP and others who know the rules better than I please chime in & correct any errors or misstatements I have made.  

[Richard Lesher]

43 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

Re the fb page I am aware that the only thing preventing it from being posted was a snarky comment at the top “Welp time to post to DCP” and that Richard has been informed that it will be reposted if the comment at the top aligns with the community rules.

I have not been informed. Look, they found a reason they could latch onto to justify removal of a pubic record of the Department of Justice. 

Who has been informed is DCI. I gave them the DOJ letter last night too, and I showed them the letter being removed from the SCV controlled alumni forum this morning. They will have the same information to come to the same conclusion or not. 

Why do comments directed toward me with vulgarity on the SCV Alumni Association continue to be permitted? 

I'm not buying it. I don't think many others are either. 

[scheherazadesghost]

nm

Edited August 29, 2023 by scheherazadesghost